Advocacy & Safety - Ratio of male to female cyclists who do not wear a helmet.

I know there are a lot of people here who do not wear a helmet for what ever reason. That is fine, your choice, etc, etc, etc. I'm not going to get into that.

But what I am curious to know is what is the ratio between the genders that do not wear a helmet? Are there more males then females, or vice versa that do not wear a helmet? This is regardless of the reason or age.

If you wish sound off that you do not wear a helmet & indicate your gender.

Just what we needed. Yet another in the endless series of helmet threads.

Female - I wear one.

hermaphrodite
I wear a beanie

Seriously,
Male...wears a helmet and does not give a flying f if you do or not.

I'm androgynous. I wear one sometimes. I'm not sure wether it's my masculine or feminine qualities at work when I chose not to wear it :p

I'm male & wear one.

I no longer give a flying f if anyone else does not wear one either. I'm just curious as to the ratio between the genders regardless of age. For those of you who have kids & do not require they wear one please indicate that if you wish.

Male.
I wear a helmet a lot of times....but, sometimes, I just hop on my bike and go, sans helmet.
If people wear them, great. If not, that's fine too. The important thing is to just ride, baby, ride.

Over all I see a much larger percentage of males who do not wear a helmet. Of course what let's me say that without even stoping to think is that that riders of beater bikes for transportation is almost 100% male and also almost 100% non helmet wearing.

Female- wear one

female - wear one the majority of the time

We talking regular BF/club cyclists here or run of the road kids and street people? Local clubs will not let you ride with them MorF without one. Kids some. Street people zero.

Good question, I will keep track for a few days and let you know.

We talking regular BF/club cyclists here or run of the road kids and street people? Local clubs will not let you ride with them MorF without one. Kids some. Street people zero.

Good question, I will keep track for a few days and let you know.

I am talking about anyone who rides a bike, so all of the above & then some.

# In 2003, about 8 times as many bicycle deaths were males compared with females. At every age, more male than female bicyclists were killed. Deaths per million people were higher among males than females at all ages. Bicycle deaths per million people were highest among 12 year-old males.



Seems if you are a male, wearing a helmet or not, you are more likely to die.;)

You know, the reason I found this excerpt is because I became curious about the stats involving helmets and injuries. The conclusion is I give up. There are so many conflicting numbers you can not tell if they are making them up for political correctness or if they are fact.

Some examples:

Pro-helmet use advocates point to the large drop in the number of head injuries and deaths among children under 16 since helmet laws took affect nationwide for that age group. At the same time, 60+% of parents state that their children are not allowed to ride unsupervised or not allowed to leave the immediate area surrounding the home. Sales for youth bikes (20-24 inch wheels) has dropped by 23 million annually in the last ten years. Wouldn't it be logical that bike related injuries fall significantly if children are no longer riding without supervision or not riding at all?

Studies have shown that head injuries have risen in some areas despite a higher percentage of adults and children wearing helmets as well as a drop in the number of riders overall.

You are more likely to be injured driving/riding in an automobile than riding a bike.

In 25% of bike related fatailities in 2003 the rider had a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher.

I'm male and wear a helmet. My wife also wears a helmet.

Studies have shown that head injuries have risen in some areas despite a higher percentage of adults and children wearing helmets as well as a drop in the number of riders overall.

I attribute this to the crappy helmets folks buy - designed for looks and air flow more than for protection from anything more than an Arte Johnson spill. Then folks don't wear them properly. Lets not even get into the lack of comptetent and safe riding skills exhibited by your average cyclist.


You are more likely to be injured driving/riding in an automobile than riding a bike.

Let's not cloud the issue with pesky facts, eh. ;)


In 25% of bike related fatailities in 2003 the rider had a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher.

Let's install breathalyzer locks on all bikes, it locks automatically upon stopping (which would justify blowing stops) and will not unlock if you blow over a .05.

We should also have black boxes built into all bikes, so that meaningful data, including speed and sex of the rider, can be recorded for the benefit of safety nannies everywhere!

DATA, WE NEED MORE DATA...WE DON'T CARE IF IT MEANS ANYTHING, WE JUST WANT DATA...DAMMIT!

# In 2003, about 8 times as many bicycle deaths were males compared with females. At every age, more male than female bicyclists were killed. Deaths per million people were higher among males than females at all ages. Bicycle deaths per million people were highest among 12 year-old males.



Seems if you are a male, wearing a helmet or not, you are more likely to die.;)



You went on to point out how statistics can be flawed, so this is not directed at you, just expanding on your point and making it unmistakeable clear.

At a typical club ride the ratio of male to female riders is about 8 to 1. For post schooling people riding beater bikes for transport (a high risk group) the ratio is more like 80 to 1.

What t first glance was a 'valid' statistic is really less than worthless. Death or injury per rider is better, but far from perfect. Injury rate per mile ridden is getting there, but still has a couple of problems. Rates per mile for comparable riders (other than the difference measured) under comperable conditions would be the best. Of course once you do that there is a good chance that the sample size is so small that random chance is enough to cloud any conclusions.

What strikes me as curious is why the OP wants this information: could it be to further a pro-helmet agenda? To confirm gender-stereotypes or bias? To arm himself with data (as unscientific and unreliable as it may be) to counter arguments by non-helmet-wearing riders? I suspect the reasons are purely self-serving.

I can understand helmet-industry folks or even government folks wanting verifiable data, but aggressive, stubborn and forceful advocates may have only selfish interests at heart.

While I see people who ride differently than I do, do things I wouldn't consider doing or that I would regard as dangerous and foolish, etc., I'm not interested in converting everyone to my way of doing things. It's up to them to ride in the manner they feel comfortable with. But, it seems there are many here in these forums that insist that all riders behave precisely as they do and, frankly, I find that disrespectful to all the others that don't behave as they do. Some riders here, for instance, judging by the number of confrontations, conflicts and collisions they have clearly need a helmet while others do not.
Perhaps their environment is safer, perhaps their riding technique is less dangerous. Who knows?

Allow people the same rights and freedoms as you would have them extend to you: let people make up their own minds and respect their decisions.

If the OP wanted any statistically meaningful data, he would go sit on a park bench and count the cyclists that come riding by.

The OP is simply trolling for a long pro/con helmet debate.

If the OP wanted any statistically meaningful data, he would go sit on a park bench and count the cyclists that come riding by.

The OP is simply trolling for a long pro/con helmet debate.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Then perhaps you could enlighten us as to why you---a confirmed and vocal advocate of helmet-use---want the information, what conclusions you hope to draw from the data and how it might affect your thinking, if it all, about helmets.

A one-word answer of 'wrong' certainly is no explanation. It is fair for us to ask you to elaborate if you are imposing on all the forum members to supply you with this information.

What strikes me as curious is why the OP wants this information: could it be to further a pro-helmet agenda?

No.


To confirm gender-stereotypes or bias? To arm himself with data (as unscientific and unreliable as it may be) to counter arguments by non-helmet-wearing riders? I suspect the reasons are purely self-serving.

No.


I can understand helmet-industry folks or even government folks wanting verifiable data, but aggressive, stubborn and forceful advocates may have only selfish interests at heart.

It is to compare the data to my area. I have an idea on what it is in my area. I just wonder if it is better or worse in other areas. I know the population of & the amount of cyclists in an area is a factor too.

Sioux City has been delcared one of the safest cities to live in. I don't know if that is based on a state level, a regional level or a national level. I also do not know what factors were used to determine that. It could have been jsut crime rate, motor vehicle accident rate, etc. Or if everything was factored in, including the use of safety equipment while participating is activities such as cycling, roller blading, etc.

In this area women wear helmets far more then men do. But from what I have seen in other cities in Iowa, cyclists here wear helmets more often then not.

The central Iowa area being the worst. I am also basing this on the nearby communities in South Dakota & Nebraska too. A person can literally ride from one state to the next in a matter of min. in one day.

I am not using this to further any sort of agenda as you put it.

No.



No.



It is to compare the data to my area. I have an idea on what it is in my area. I just wonder if it is better or worse in other areas. I know the population of & the amount of cyclists in an area is a factor too.

Sioux City has been delcared one of the safest cities to live in. I don't know if that is based on a state level, a regional level or a national level. I also do not know what factors were used to determine that. It could have been jsut crime rate, motor vehicle accident rate, etc. Or if everything was factored in, including the use of safety equipment while participating is activities such as cycling, roller blading, etc.

In this area women wear helmets far more then men do. But from what I have seen in other cities in Iowa, cyclists here wear helmets more often then not.

The central Iowa area being the worst. I am also basing this on the nearby communities in South Dakota & Nebraska too. A person can literally ride from one state to the next in a matter of min. in one day.

I am not using this to further any sort of agenda as you put it.

Fair enough. I'll be watching to see that it doesn't.

The results of my first 24 hour survey are: 16 men with helmets, 15 without, 3 women with helmets, 10 without. The wife grinned at this data and said in a squeeky Barbie voice, "But it would mess my hair." Remember now, I dod not say it, she did. She added in a normal voice that she uses various clips to hold her hair in style on the way to and from work and a helmet would be unwearable. So, she drives to work.

Data observations: Subjective match between male helmet use and economic status. Clean, neat, bikie type, nicer neighborhood = helmet. Field worker, industrial, street person = no helmet. Adult women like the mom with a helmeted boy = helmets. Teens(?) = no helmet.

As to what the general area is like see BICYCLING mag's story about good places to bike vacation.

On my routes, it's very rare to see a female cyclist. Probably at least a 10-1 ratio. I'm 100% commuter (no funsie rides in the hills or anything, though I'd like to start), so it may be different in clubs or group rides.

In the last 3 months or so, about 50 percent of the men I've seen are decked out in speedy-spandex-type getups, and 50 percent in street clothes. In that same time, I've only seen one (1) female cyclist in the speedy-spandex-getup. Not sure why that is. Maybe modesty, or not wanting to get catcalls and harrassment on the road.

Helmets: I wear one (woman). Most of the women I see wear them. I can't think of any I've seen that don't, but women are rare around here anyway. On the other hand, if I had to estimate, probably 1/4 to 1/3 of the men I see don't wear one ...

... such as that dude riding the wrong way in the bike lane, on a cell phone, without a helmet, this morning. I should have said "wrong way, mang!" as I passed him, but didn't. So we were both stupid.

I've done too many cat scans on scrambled brains from helmetless riders not to wear one. Could care less about my hair since I work at night and always wear a ponytail.

male and don't wear one unless racing or in an area required to by law.

Female and wear one. Live in Australia and required by law to wear one that passes safety standards at all times while riding. Also do not ride while drunk, that's illegal too.

I don't want to die. I don't want to get fined either.

Damnable: "I don't want to die."


I don't know if anyone caught an article recently about "over use" of helmets. It seems that helmets have been designed for pole vaulters and some officials are asking if requiring helmets for sports has gone too far.

I tend to wonder if we have fallen victim of an industry that promoted fear to make a profit by making it sound as if we are going to die if we do not wear a helmet.

From magna.ca:

Helmets which could provide significant protection (if they existed) would be of such construction that few would care to wear them. Modern bicycle helmets are designed to mitigate the effect of an impact to the head of a person falling off a bicycle. At best, they reduce the chance of minor injuries.

"... it is impossible to build a helmet that will offer significant impact protection"

Dr. George Shively, The Snell Memorial Foundation

"... helmets will mitigate the effects of falling off your bicycle and striking your head... If a cyclist is accelerated by a car, then the helmet will not work and will not prevent a severe or even fatal injury"

Dr. Michael Schwartz, neurosurgeon and member of Canadian Standards Association Committee establishing helmet standards

I've done too many cat scans on scrambled brains from helmetless riders not to wear one.


I call BS here. Care to provide some data to back that up...let's say total number of cat scans vs total number from bicycle related accidents and total number that were helmetless? Maybe throw in a breakdown of those caused by things other than a bike...but I am barking up a bare tree here me thinks.

The only time I've had to have a cat-scan was after a car accident....and I didn't even hit my head on anything. Seems the sudden impact is enough to force the brain to impact the inside of the skull and cause a concussion.

I'm a person. I wear helmets occasionally, ride or walk home from a bar, and work in healthcare. You get a lot farther in life if you deal with people as people, rather than a checklist of status, stuff and what you think.

I tend to wonder if we have fallen victim of an industry that promoted fear to make a profit by making it sound as if we are going to die if we do not wear a helmet.
I always believed that at the end of the day, that some LBS' make more money (or at least a significant chunk of their profit) off sales of high margin, high-end helmets than new bicycles. Perhaps some of the shop guys can set me straight.

I call BS here. Care to provide some data to back that up...let's say total number of cat scans vs total number from bicycle related accidents and total number that were helmetless? Maybe throw in a breakdown of those caused by things other than a bike...but I am barking up a bare tree here me thinks.
I'd be real surprised if the cat scanner in question has any info on the type of accidents that put the patients in the machine and is just BS'ing as my comrade has detected.

What is curious is that non helmet wearers do not seem to be promoting an agenda encouraging helmet wearers to throw away their lids, but helmet wearers seem to employ tactics that right-wing extremists and religious zealots employ when hoping to convert the heathen non-believers. Makes you think, huh.

I call BS here. Care to provide some data to back that up...let's say total number of cat scans vs total number from bicycle related accidents and total number that were helmetless? Maybe throw in a breakdown of those caused by things other than a bike...but I am barking up a bare tree here me thinks.

You're kidding right?

You were in the military. I'm sure you were told to wear a bullet proof vest while in combat. You were also probably told to wear your helmet right? Did you not wear either one or would you not have worn one because someone told you too, even though it could save your life from an exploding gernade or a bullet? Was it an order to wear one & you had no choice or was the choice left up to you? Did you have the same kind of resistance to wearing a piece of safety gear while in the military as you do here?

What is curious is that non helmet wearers do not seem to be promoting an agenda encouraging helmet wearers to throw away their lids, but helmet wearers seem to employ tactics that right-wing extremists and religious zealots employ when hoping to convert the heathen non-believers. Makes you think, huh.


While you're right about that I think I have an idea why both non-helmet wearers & helmet wearers alike are resistant to regulations & promoting an agenda when it comes to helmet use.

I think in part it is because in our lives we have enough regulatory & agenda promoting things happening. A good example could be on the job. A construction area comes to mind. It is an OSHA regulation that anyone on a construction site has to wear a hard hat. But if something heavy enough falls from 10' or more in the air & lands on someone it will not be a head injury that kills them, but a crushing injury. I worked at a steel wholesaler for many years. I had to wear a hard hat in the warehouse where there were overhead cranes moving very heavy bundles of steel. I knew if one fell on me that'd be it & it would not be from a head injury, but from a broken neck or being crushed. The hard hats were more of a bump cap to keep us from splitting our heads open if the loads were low enough to bump into which did happen as they were being lowered.

So in part at least some people think there are already too many regulations we have to live by they don't want one more imposed upon them. There are things like it is against the law to steal, murder, drive drunk, drive over the speed limit, drive with out wearing a seat belt. Everyone is sick and tired of all these rules we have to live by they do not want to see anymore imposed upon them.

That's ok though. We should not have anymore pesky laws imposed upon us, we have too many already as it is.

You're kidding right?

You were in the military. I'm sure you were told to wear a bullet proof vest while in combat. You were also probably told to wear your helmet right? Did you not wear either one or would you not have worn one because someone told you too, even though it could save your life from an exploding gernade or a bullet? Was it an order to wear one & you had no choice or was the choice left up to you? Did you have the same kind of resistance to wearing a piece of safety gear while in the military as you do here?

You really do define what ASSume means. No I was not required to wear body armor - good luck getting it if you wanted it. Just like when you and your neocon brothers sent our troops into Iraq with the assumption that ole Saddam would resort to NBC warfare - yet a large number of our troops had little or no NBC gear.

FYI, I have stood, helmetless, playing catch with a football, while being shot at and while mortars and rockets were being lobbed into our compound. Why...rather why not - fate don't care where you are, who you are or what you are wearing, which is why schmucks like me are sitting here posting on BF while others, who did wear their helmets and hunkered down in a bunker, are - dead. When your number is up, your number is up - all the helmets, armor and bunkers in the world ain't gonna save you.

No go back to your little make believe world where everything is neat and orderly while the rest of us continue to live here in the real world. And one bit of advice - don't act like the standard neo-con-nazi, wrapping the flag around you, trying to claim you support the troops and talking about things military when you don't have an f'ing clue about them.

Geesh, trying to compare bicycle helmets to combat gear is about the dumbest analogy I have heard yet. Tis a shame you think cycling is so dangerous...but then again I bet you stock up on duct tape and plastic regularly too....:rolleyes:

You really do define what ASSume means. No I was not required to wear body armor - good luck getting it if you wanted it. Just like when you and your neocon brothers sent our troops into Iraq with the assumption that ole Saddam would resort to NBC warfare - yet a large number of our troops had little or no NBC gear.

FYI, I have stood, helmetless, playing catch with a football, while being shot at and while mortars and rockets were being lobbed into our compound. Why...rather why not - fate don't care where you are, who you are or what you are wearing, which is why schmucks like me are sitting here posting on BF while others, who did wear their helmets and hunkered down in a bunker, are - dead. When your number is up, your number is up - all the helmets, armor and bunkers in the world ain't gonna save you.

No go back to your little make believe world where everything is neat and orderly while the rest of us continue to live here in the real world. And one bit of advice - don't act like the standard neo-con-nazi, wrapping the flag around you, trying to claim you support the troops and talking about things military when you don't have an f'ing clue about them.

Geesh, trying to compare bicycle helmets to combat gear is about the dumbest analogy I have heard yet. Tis a shame you think cycling is so dangerous...but then again I bet you stock up on duct tape and plastic regularly too....:rolleyes:

I was only asking about safety gear used. You did not use it nor were required to, ok. I understand when your time is up, it's up. It can happen on the battle field or when riding a bike. As you said fate don't care, I agree with you. It is not something you can control, nor should try to.

I could have asked the same thing about using safety gear on a construction site if I knew you were a construction worker. If you were, I would have asked do you use the gear because OSHA requires it or because it is a good idea & can help protect you from injury? Or both?

BTW I had nothing to do with the troops going to Iraq. I would rather we not be there. I support the troops but not the ******* president we have in office right now. IMO this was a bad call he made this time around. But I do not pretend I know everything about it. Frankly I am getting sick & tired of seeing on the news every night another soldier killed. It has come to the point I know where it is going to be in the news cast so I leave the room until that part is over. I skip over it when I read the paper too. I am not denying it I am just getting tired of seeing, reading & hearing about it. I am also grateful I do not have any family that I know of in the military in Iraq. My youngest sister who just graduated high school asked what I would think about her joining the military. I told her it is a very bad idea right now because of Iraq, but it is your choice I will support you in what ever you do. She decided not to join, yet. I hope she waits until Iraq is over with until she does. By then she will probably be out of college.